Song: For me, I just can't get over the crashing cinemagraphic effect of hearing Bowie tear into "Life on Mars." It's a life affirming moment!

So how are we going to sustain hostitility if I have to agree 100% with you?

You shouldn't be agreeing with him. That's the simple answer.

Like 'Heroes', 'Life On Mars' suffers from Bowies torturous Judy Garland darlink-I'm-ALIIIIVE! bellowing, alloyed with the stupidest hippy lyrics this side of 'oh oh ohohoh fireplace' early REM.

By Christ, you only have to see the promo, with the Dame tarted up to the eyeballs, and listen to lines about Mickey Mouse being grown up a cow, and realise the man was a fucking tosspot of the highest order. It's rock and roll stripped of rage, where all that remains is artifice.

I'd much rather hear 'Imagine'. At least Lennon wasn't a coward when it came to expressing himself.

Song: For me, I just can't get over the crashing cinemagraphic effect of hearing Bowie tear into "Life on Mars." It's a life affirming moment!

So how are we going to sustain hostitility if I have to agree 100% with you?

You shouldn't be agreeing with him. That's the simple answer.

Like 'Heroes', 'Life On Mars' suffers from Bowies torturous Judy Garland darlink-I'm-ALIIIIVE! bellowing, alloyed with the stupidest hippy lyrics this side of 'oh oh ohohoh fireplace' early REM.

By Christ, you only have to see the promo, with the Dame tarted up to the eyeballs, and listen to lines about Mickey Mouse being grown up a cow, and realise the man was a fucking tosspot of the highest order. It's rock and roll stripped of rage, where all that remains is artifice.

I'd much rather hear 'Imagine'. At least Lennon wasn't a coward when it came to expressing himself.

Maybe it's just because Heroes is just a cracker of a song....personally I do feel the emotion in that song, and in life on mars as well though i would think it is a bit syrupy.

King John Coan wrote:I'd much rather hear 'Imagine'. At least Lennon wasn't a coward when it came to expressing himself.

Bowie and Lennon had two fundamentally different approaches when it came to performance. Lennon believed the performer shoul reveal everything and that the artistic merit lay in the honesty of the act. Bowie believed that you could use narration and performance as a way of distancing that performer from the expression so as to highlight the artfulness of that expression. I don' think it had anything to do with how brave, or not, either performer was. Hate the result, but not the approach I think then.

King John Coan wrote:Like 'Heroes', 'Life On Mars' suffers from Bowies torturous Judy Garland darlink-I'm-ALIIIIVE! bellowing, alloyed with the stupidest hippy lyrics this side of 'oh oh ohohoh fireplace' early REM.

By Christ, you only have to see the promo, with the Dame tarted up to the eyeballs, and listen to lines about Mickey Mouse being grown up a cow, and realise the man was a fucking tosspot of the highest order. It's rock and roll stripped of rage, where all that remains is artifice.

And so...assuming you are a Bowie fan, how exactly is this a problem for you?

King John Coan wrote:I'd much rather hear 'Imagine'. At least Lennon wasn't a coward when it came to expressing himself.

Bowie and Lennon had two fundamentally different approaches when it came to performance. Lennon believed the performer shoul reveal everything and that the artistic merit lay in the honesty of the act. Bowie believed that you could use narration and performance as a way of distancing that performer from the expression so as to highlight the artfulness of that expression. I don' think it had anything to do with how brave, or not, either performer was. Hate the result, but not the approach I think then.

Well, yes. True. That's what I meant, really. I can't resist a dig at Bowie - at his worst he's really terribly dated and irritating. I wouldn't bother so much if I didn't think his best work touched the stratosphere.

And our approaches differ in that your posts are more considered than mine!

From 69-79 (and maybe even starting before), he was great. Made more abrupt interesting turns than anyone else, Neil included, for that whole period. post-80, hell with 'im, even supposed "returns to form."

Yeah, artifice was part of his game. But it wasn't as if he wasn't being himself. His range of interests was legitimate, and at least for the whole of the 70s, he remembered to always be interesting, even through dubious turns like the white soul singer of "Young Americans."

Album - Hunky Dory. It's just where he's most being himself.

Song - The Bewlay Brothers. Ditto. It's where he confesses the whole game.

sloopjohnc wrote:Aslan has some good credenitals - got his BA from Santa Clara, a Jesuit school and his Masters from Harvard and PhD from Santa Barbara, a surfing school.

King John Coan wrote:I'd much rather hear 'Imagine'. At least Lennon wasn't a coward when it came to expressing himself.

Bowie and Lennon had two fundamentally different approaches when it came to performance. Lennon believed the performer shoul reveal everything and that the artistic merit lay in the honesty of the act. Bowie believed that you could use narration and performance as a way of distancing that performer from the expression so as to highlight the artfulness of that expression. I don' think it had anything to do with how brave, or not, either performer was. Hate the result, but not the approach I think then.

Well, yes. True. That's what I meant, really. I can't resist a dig at Bowie - at his worst he's really terribly dated and irritating. I wouldn't bother so much if I didn't think his best work touched the stratosphere.

And our approaches differ in that your posts are more considered than mine!

It struck me that you knew very well that Bowie was all about the artifice, and Lennon about the "honesty". But it was the "cowardice" thing I felt needed to be eliminated there.